BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1848
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1848 (Chiu) - As Amended March 15, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires local law enforcement agencies to
periodically update the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence
Tracking database (SAFE-T) on the disposition of all sexual
assault evidence kits (kits) in their custody by providing
specific data. Also, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is
required to provide quarterly reports to the Legislature
summarizing the data received.
AB 1848
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Unknown minor reimbursable state mandated costs (GF) for local
agencies to provide the required information, in a yet
unspecified schedule, to DOJ. However, AB 1848 does require
DOJ to submit quarterly reports to the Legislature; therefore
staff assumes the information must be submitted at least
quarterly. The database is web-based and free for local law
enforcement agencies, so the only cost to local agencies will
be workload to enter and data and any status updates. Also,
DOJ manages all DNA evidence testing for 46 of the 58
counties; the reimbursable cost from the other 12 should be
minor, if any. However, reporting the reason why a rape kit
was not tested will be more resource intensive than providing
statistical data; but that should not be a common occurrence.
2)Costs to DOJ are minor and absorbable.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Current law requires an adult arrested for or
charged with a felony and a juvenile adjudicated for a felony
to submit DNA samples. It also specifies that law enforcement
should do one of the following for any sexual assault forensic
evidence received by the law enforcement agency on or after
January 1, 2015:
a) Submit sexual assault forensic evidence to the crime lab
within 20 days after it is booked into evidence; or
b) Ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place
to submit forensic evidence collected from the victim of a
sexual assault directly from the medical facility where the
AB 1848
Page 3
victim is examined to the crime lab within five days after
the evidence is obtained from the victim.
Current law encourages DNA analysis of rape kits within the
statute of limitations, which states that a criminal complaint
must be filed within one year after the identification of the
suspect by DNA evidence, and that DNA evidence must be
analyzed within two years of the offense for which it was
collected. Current law also encourages crime labs to do one
of the following:
a) Process rape kits, create DNA profiles when possible,
and upload qualifying DNA profiles into CODIS within 120
days of receipt of the rape kit; or
b) Transmit the rape kit to another crime lab within 30
days to create a DNA profile, and then upload the profile
into CODIS within 30 days of being notified about the
presence of DNA
Current law also requires law enforcement agencies to inform
victims in writing if they intend to destroy a rape kit 60
days prior to the destruction of the rape kit, when the case
is unsolved and the statute of limitations has not run.
SAFE-T was created by DOJ in 2015, based on voluntary data
input from law enforcement agencies, to help track how many
rape kits were not being tested. However, a recent report by
the California State Auditor found that law enforcement
agencies rarely document reasons for not analyzing sexual
assault evidence kits. The audit found 45 cases in which the
kits were not submitted for analysis. Upon a more in-depth
review of the individual cases, the report found that analysis
of the kits would not have been likely to further the
investigation of those cases. Even though the individual
reasons for not testing the kits was found to be reasonable,
the report still stressed the need for more information about
why agencies decide to send some kits but not others.
AB 1848
Page 4
2)Purpose. According to the author, there is no comprehensive
data on how many rape kits are collected and the reasons why
kits are not tested. The author argues that we need to know
how many kits are collected each year, and if they're not
analyzed, we need to know why.
AB 1848 requires local law enforcement agencies to
periodically update SAFE-T on the disposition of all sexual
assault evidence kits in their custody by providing the
following:
a) number of kits collected,
b) number of kits for which biological evidence samples
were submitted to a DNA lab for analysis;
c) number of kits from which probative evidence was
generated; and
d) reason for not submitting evidence from a given kit to a
DNA lab. Also, if after 120 days the sample has not been
tested, a public lab is required to provide a reason for
the status, and if the DNA testing is performed by a
private lab, the responsible law enforcement agency is
required to provide updates on the status every 120 days.
1)Support: According to the sponsor, Attorney General Kamala
Harris, "Recent years have seen a loudening outcry over a
so-called 'rape kit backlog' in California and nationwide -
allegations that many sexual assault evidence kits, possibly
thousands, remain untested. There is no doubt that when
evidence that could lead to the identification of an unknown
AB 1848
Page 5
assailant goes unanalyzed without good cause, some miscarriage
of justice has occurred. At the same time, there are myriad
reasons why a local agency sample may not be tested-many of
which may well be legitimate-including resource limitations
and decisions made as part of the prosecutorial process. In
order to effectively address any perceived epidemic of
unanalyzed kits, we must better understand the reasons why
kits are not tested.
2)Opposition. According to the California State Sheriffs'
Association (CSSA), "We share your intent that sexual assaults
are investigated and perpetrators not go unpunished. In 2014,
CSSA worked with Assembly Member Nancy Skinner to amend her AB
1517 into a final product that will help achieve those goals
without being overly burdensome. However, by requiring law
enforcement agencies to provide statistics to DOJ, AB 1848
will create another unfunded mandate and would place
significant cost burdens on these agencies in terms of
resources and personnel.
3)Related Legislation:
a) AB 909 (Quirk), would have required a law enforcement
agency responsible for taking or processing rape kit
evidence to annually report, by July 1 of each year, to the
Department of Justice information pertaining to the
processing of rape kits, including the number of rape kits
the law enforcement agency collects, the number of those
rape kits that are tested, and the number of those rape
kits that are not tested. For those rape kits that are not
tested, the bill would require the law enforcement agency
to also report the reason the rape kit was not tested.
This bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Suspense
file.
b) AB 2499 (Maienschein), updates the SAFE-T database to
allow victims of sexual assault to have secure access to
AB 1848
Page 6
the location and information regarding their sexual assault
evidence kits. This bill is also on today's committee
calendar.
6)Prior Legislation:
a) AB 1517 (Skinner), Chapter 874, Statutes of 2014,
encourages law enforcement agencies to submit sexual
assault forensic evidence received by the agency to a crime
lab within 20 days after it is booked into evidence, and
ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place to
submit forensic evidence collected from the victim of a
sexual assault to a crime lab within 5 days after the
evidence is obtained from the victim.
b) AB 558 (Portantino), of the 2009-2010 session, would
have required local law enforcement agencies responsible
for taking or collecting rape kit evidence to annually
report to the Department of Justice statistical information
pertaining to the testing and submission for DNA analysis
of rape kits. This bill was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, who noted: .
"while this measure is well-intended, it continues to
ignore the precarious fiscal conditions of California's
crime laboratories? Unfortunately, AB 558 will not
provide any additional funding or staffing for crime
laboratories and will instead divert resources away from
testing to sending reports to the Department of Justice.
In this time of fiscal crisis, I cannot condone this
shift in priorities."
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1848
Page 7